(12-11-2013 10:42 AM)DarkLord1 Wrote:  Thank you for the insight. If a women ovulates on day 14 of the standard 28 day cycle, I would think that she would be more receptive to mones then. I would only want people to comment who found the topic interesting, as you did.

I believe that she would be more receptive to certain types of mones. Even the earlier mentioned study indicates that the preference is for a more masculine looking male at certain points of the cycle. At other points of the cycle a more femininized male may be preferable.

(12-11-2013 10:19 AM)paradigmshift Wrote:  I found this chart to be useful in understanding hormone level and how women feel.

http://images.marthastewart.com/images/c...g-2012.pdf

Very nice graphic...Thanks, Paradigmshift.

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but Oxytocin in a mix can influence a person's affinity for people within vs. outside of their 'ingroup.' There's focus on "what combination gets blondes."

Quote:The love and trust it promotes are not toward the world in general, just toward a person’s in-group. Oxytocin turns out to be the hormone of the clan, not of universal brotherhood. Psychologists trying to specify its role have now concluded it is the agent of ethnocentrism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/scienc....html?_r=0

I mention oxytocin here as a model. I don't know how people define their 'clan' but the notion that hormones/pheromones can influence ingroup vs outgroup preference seems worth considering in regards to this topic.

(12-11-2013 6:09 AM)The Doctor Wrote:  Must be honest, as you pointed out I would also think more testerone would lead to more hair. This would lead to higher -None levels if speculation is correct?

1. Relationship between androgens and hair is tricky. DHT (a metabolite of Testosterone) is responsible for masculine secondary sex characteristics like hair growth. But it's also responsible for androgen related pattern baldness. Cells that live fast, die fast, it would seem.

2. Dominant genes aren't necessarily strong or preferable in all situations. If you live up north where there's very little sunlight, having skin that's too dark can reduce the amount of vitamin D that you get, for example. But if you live in the tropics, having skin that 's too light means that you get sunburn and skin cancer. The question of which genes are good is therefore somewhat situational.

(and sunlight exposure may very well impact mone effects. I suspect that the aggressive stuff does better in darkness or when a person is sleepy, but I'm not certain yet.)

(12-15-2013 5:16 AM)wiserd Wrote:  I've mentioned this elsewhere, but Oxytocin in a mix can influence a person's affinity for people within vs. outside of their 'ingroup.' There's focus on "what combination gets blondes."



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/scienc....html?_r=0

I mention oxytocin here as a model. I don't know how people define their 'clan' but the notion that hormones/pheromones can influence ingroup vs outgroup preference seems worth considering in regards to this topic.

Wiserd,

I find the article fascinating. Thank you for sharing. Specifically, this passage:

"The brain weighs emotional attitudes like those prompted by oxytocin against information available to the conscious mind. If there is no cognitive information in a situation in which a decision has to be made, like whether to trust a stranger about whom nothing is known, the brain will go with the emotional advice from its oxytocin system, but otherwise rational data will be weighed against the influence from oxytocin and may well override it, Dr. Averbeck said."

In another post, I mentioned using Liquid Trust with other blends. The idea I was going for is for the mones to create a feeling and the oxytocin in Liquid Trust to help them confirm or "trust" that feeling.

The passage above mentions a person weighing other cognitive information....So could another blend serve as additional information?

In college, I was successful at getting women to sleep with me who "didn't date black guys". Many different reasons given, but the primary one that I observed is how the action would be perceived by their friends and family. Basically what people would think of them.

My strategy was to say something to the effect of "if there was no way that they could find out, then you would do x". They would ask how I could guarantee that and I had a pretty good answer.

It didn't always work, like most systems, but it worked a lot.

(12-15-2013 12:35 PM)DarkLord1 Wrote:  In college, I was successful at getting women to sleep with me who "didn't date black guys". Many different reasons given, but the primary one that I observed is how the action would be perceived by their friends and family. Basically what people would think of them.

My strategy was to say something to the effect of "if there was no way that they could find out, then you would do x". They would ask how I could guarantee that and I had a pretty good answer.

Interesting. I'm not into mones for the 'sleep with lots of women' angle, but that does seem to hit an important nail on the head in terms of female sexuality. Thank you.

(12-11-2013 1:48 AM)Brainbuster Wrote:  Don't get me wrong, I don't discriminate, but a blonde girl's armpit looks better than a brunette's armpit...especially at 5 o'clock.

You haven't lived until you have licked a brunette's onion-y hairy armpit.

(12-26-2013 6:41 PM)Symbiote Wrote:  You haven't lived until you have licked a brunette's onion-y hairy armpit.

Goddamn. I'd love to hang out with you.
You aren't allowed to suggest anything off a menu, but otherwise you'd be a riot.

(12-15-2013 5:16 AM)wiserd Wrote:  I've mentioned this elsewhere, but Oxytocin in a mix can influence a person's affinity for people within vs. outside of their 'ingroup.' There's focus on "what combination gets blondes."



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/scienc....html?_r=0

I mention oxytocin here as a model. I don't know how people define their 'clan' but the notion that hormones/pheromones can influence ingroup vs outgroup preference seems worth considering in regards to this topic.

Thank you for the excellent link.

(12-11-2013 8:26 AM)The Doctor Wrote:  ...As we all know woman are always seeking...well Id describe it as the "Alpha gentleman", therefore this is fascinating, socials may actually do more for you than sexuals...

I've been thinking along the same lines. Initially my thinking was:

1. I need sex now.
2. Therefore I need to get the pheromone that will make girls feel the most sexual desire.


But recently I've been thinking that this will work only when 3 (at least) factors are given:
1. only females in that brief, most fertile period of their cycle,
2. when logistics are perfect
3. I'll still need to lead the interaction to sex every step of the way, and possibly deal with LMR and other social pressures on her

So, if I have no social circle at present, and I'm not naturally a leader, and I'm an unemployed introvert, and my intent is to get laid, probably it would be more practical to get a social pheromone, or a mood-boosting pheromone, or a trust pheromone, or a cuddlier pheromone, or a status pheromone.